In re Works – Per Curiam

Respondent Matthew B. Works, admitted 1982, was the court‑appointed or retained counsel in two separate appeals: one for Y.P. (appointed April 2011) and one for J.R. (entered appearance March 2012).
In both matters Works failed to docket the appeals after concluding they lacked merit (Y.P.) or after filing notices of appeal (J.R.), causing approximately two years of inaction and delay.
Works remained counsel of record while taking no steps to withdraw, move to dismiss, or advise clients about required steps (e.g., poverty affidavit to obtain appellate counsel).
Clients repeatedly sought information; Works failed to communicate and did not timely respond to letters and status inquiries.
A hearing panel found clear and convincing evidence that Works violated KRPC 1.2(c), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(d), and 3.2; Works admitted the facts and cooperated.
Aggravating factors: multiple prior disciplinary matters and lengthy practice. Mitigating factors: no dishonest motive, major depressive disorder with treatment and rehabilitation, cooperation, remorse, peer support, and a detailed probation plan.

Issue	Disciplinary Administrator's Argument	Works's Argument	Held
Whether Works violated duties of scope, diligence, communication, termination, and expediting litigation under KRPC	Works neglected clients, failed to limit scope properly, withdrew improperly, failed to communicate, and caused unjustified delay	Works admitted facts, cited lack of merit and personal/health issues but did not dispute rule violations	Court adopted panel: violated KRPC 1.2(c), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(d), and 3.2 (clear and convincing evidence)
Appropriate sanction for the violations	Recommended probation with underlying suspension (18–24 months) or two‑year suspension stayed pending probation	Requested continued practice under probation; acknowledged an underlying suspension may be required	Court ordered a two‑year suspension, stayed for three years contingent on successful probation with detailed conditions (majority); a minority favored harsher immediate suspension
Whether probation was appropriate despite prior discipline	Probation acceptable if workable plan, implemented, and misconduct correctable	Works presented and implemented a detailed plan and treatment compliance	Court agreed probation appropriate given mitigation, implemented supervision, audits, psychological treatment, KALAP monitoring, and reporting requirements
Whether costs should be assessed	Requested costs against respondent	No opposing position accepting costs	Court ordered assessment of costs against Works

In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (2011) (standard for proving attorney misconduct and discipline review)
In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (2009) (clear and convincing evidence defined)
In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (2008) (clear and convincing evidence standard elaboration)